Vol. 6 (09) pp. 856-863 DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/7744

LAPAROSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF TUBAL ECTOPIC PREGNANCY: SINGLE-PORT VERSUS CONVENTIONAL MULTI-PORT LAPAROSCOPY.

  • Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
8 Downloads 114 Views
Crossref

Download Full Paper (PDF)

Abstract

Study objective: Evaluation of intraoperative (IO) and immediate postoperative (PO) outcome of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopy (CMPL) for management of tubal ectopic pregnancy (TEP). Design: Patients presented with acute abdominal manifestations during pregnancy were clinically evaluated and cases diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy as confirmed by transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU) and higher β-hCG levels were enrolled in the study. Patients: 52 patients had TEP diagnosed and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into two equal groups according to laparoscopic procedure. Interventions: SPL was conducted through a single 1.5-2 cm vertical umbilical incision and performed using standard laparoscopic instruments used for CMPL. Collected IO data included the need for conversion to laparotomy; operative time and need for blood transfusion. Collected PO data included pain scores and frequency of requests of PO analgesia, time of 1st ambulation and oral intake, and duration of PO hospital stay. Patients' satisfaction by cosmetic wound appearance was evaluated 3-months after surgery using a 5-points satisfaction score. Measurements and main results: Total conversion to laparotomy was 3.8% in both groups. Pain scores were significantly lower till 4-hr PO in patients of SPL compared to patients of CMPL group. SPL patients could ambulate within shorter PO time and more patients could ambulate within 3-hr PO. Mean duration of hospital stay was shorter in SPL patients with a higher frequency of patients discharged within 24-hr PO. Frequency of patients satisfied by wound appearance was higher with SPL than CMPL. Conclusion: SPL improves outcome of laparoscopic management of tubal ectopic pregnancy with significantly better short-term outcome and satisfactory cosmetic appearance compared to CMPL.

Keywords

How to Cite This Article

Hany Abdelhamid El-kallaf MD. (2018); LAPAROSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF TUBAL ECTOPIC PREGNANCY: SINGLE-PORT VERSUS CONVENTIONAL MULTI-PORT LAPAROSCOPY., International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 6 (09), 856-863, ISSN 2320-5407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7744

Corresponding Author

Hany Abdelhamid El-kallaf
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Benha University Hospital, Benha, Egypt

Article Analytics

References

  1. Yoder N, Tal R, Martin JR: Abdominal ectopic pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and single embryo transfer: a case report and systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016; 14(1):69.
  2. Ghaneie A, Grajo JR, Derr C, Kumm TR: Unusual ectopic pregnancies: sonographic findings and implications for management. J Ultrasound Med. 2015; 34(6):951-62.
  3. Taran FA, Kagan KO, H?bner M, Hoopmann M, Wallwiener D, Brucker S: The Diagnosis and Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015; 112(41):693-705.
  4. Lattouf I,?Lu C,?Pixton S,?Reid S,?Condous G: Is there a difference in the behaviour and subsequent management of ectopic pregnancies seen at first scan compared to those ectopic pregnancies which commence as pregnancies of unknown location? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol.?2016; 56(1):107-12.
  5. Seyedoshohadaei F,?Mohammadbeigi R,?Tahmuri A,?Ghaderi E: Frequency and related factors of?tubal?patency after methotrexate?treatment?in women with ectopic?pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res.?2016; 42(3):286-90.
  6. Panelli DM, Phillips CH, Brady PC: Incidence, diagnosis and management of tubal and nontubal ectopic pregnancies: a review. Fertil Res Pract., 2015; 1: 15.
  7. Togni R, Benetti-Pinto CL, Yela DA: The role of diagnostic laparoscopy in gynecology. Sao Paulo Med J. 2016; 134(1):70-3.
  8. Carbonnel M, Revaux A, Frydman R, Yazigi A, Ayoubi JM: Single-port approach to benign gynecologic pathology. A review. Minerva Ginecol. 2015; 67(3):239-47.
  9. Beuran M, Negoi I, Hostiuc S, Catena F, Sartelli M, Negoi RI, Paun S: Laparoscopic Approach has Benefits in Gynecological Emergencies - Even for Massive Hemoperitoneum. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2016; 111(1):48-53.
  10. Taheri M, Bharathan R, Subramaniam A, Kelly T: A United Kingdom national survey of trends in ectopic pregnancy management. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 34(6):508-11.
  11. Deepa J, Oladimeji O, Funlayo O: Factors that determine patient satisfaction after surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy: improving the patient journey! Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 178:60-5.
  12. Zechmeister JR, Pua TL, Boyd LR, Blank SV, Curtin JP, Pothuri B: A prospective comparison of postoperative pain and quality of life in robotic assisted vs conventional laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212(2):194.e1-7.
  13. Gallicchio L, Helzlsouer KJ, Audlin KM, Miller C, MacDonald R, Johnston M, Barrueto FF: Change in Pain and Quality of Life Among Women Enrolled in a Trial Examining the Use of Narrow Band Imaging During Laparoscopic Surgery for Suspected Endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(7):1208-14.
  14. Anderson KA, Abernathy SW, Jupiter D, Frazee RC: Patient Satisfaction After Outpatient Appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016; 26(12):954-957.
  15. Mehta TS, Levine D, Beckwith B. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy: is a human chorionic gonadotropin level of 2000 mIU/mL a reasonable threshold??Radiology,?1997; 205:569?73.
  16. 0?10 Numeric Pain Rating Scale: From McCaffery M, Pasero C. Pain: Clinical Manual, St. Louis, 1999, P. 16. Copyrighted by Mosby, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
  17. Kraemer HC, Theimann S: How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research; 1987, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  18. Murphy KR, Myors B. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests; 2003, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  19. de Poncheville L, Smirnoff A, M?nard J, Corbineau G, Vi?-Buret V, Nohra O, Leyre S, Drapier E: Feasibility of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology with conventional laparoscopic instruments. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012; 40(12):729-33.
  20. Kim YW, Park BJ, Kim TE, Ro DY: Single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy for surgical treatment of tubal pregnancy: comparison with multi-port laparoscopic salpingectomy. Int J Med Sci. 2013; 10(8):1073-8.
  21. Martyn F, Kerkhoff B: The management of ectopic pregnancy. Ir Med J. 2008; 101(3):75-7.
  22. Sagiv R, Debby A, Keidar R, Kerner R, Golan A: Interstitial pregnancy management and subsequent pregnancy outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013; 92(11):1327-30.
  23. Cohen A, Almog B, Satel A, Lessing JB, Tsafrir Z, Levin I: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of ectopic pregnancy with massive hemoperitoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013; 123(2):139-41.
  24. Cengiz H, Kaya C, Ekin M, Karakaş S, Yasar L: Is laparoscopic surgery safe in patients with an elevated shock index due to ruptured ectopic pregnancy? Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 40(3):418-20.
  25. Kim MK, Kim JJ, Choi JS, Eom JM, Lee JH: Prospective comparison of single port versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015; 41(4):590-5.
  26. Yang J, Na YJ, Song YJ, Choi OH, Lee SK, Kim HG: The effectiveness of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy with hemoperitoneum. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 55(1):35-9.
  27. Gasparri ML, Mueller MD, Taghavi K, Papadia A: Conventional versus Single Port Laparoscopy for the Surgical Treatment of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018; 83(4):329-337.
  28. Zhao M, Zhao J, Hua K, Zhu Z, Hu C: Single-incision multiport laparoscopy versus multichannel-tipped single port laparoscopy in gynecologic surgery: outcomes and benefits. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(9):14992-8.
  29. Eom JM, Kim KH, Yuk JS, Roh SI, Lee JH: Quality of life after single-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign gynecologic disease. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29(7):1850-5.
  30. Song T, Park JY, Kim TJ, Lee YY, Choi CH, Lee JW, Bae DS, Kim BG: A prospective comparative study of cosmetic satisfaction for three different surgical approaches. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 190:48-51.
  31. Karasu Y, Akselim B: Feasibility of single-incision laparoscopy for ruptured ectopic pregnancies with hemoperitoneum. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2018 May 9:1-5.
  32. Yoon BS, Park H, Seong SJ, Park CT, Park SW, Lee KJ: Single-port laparoscopic salpingectomy for the surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010; 17(1):26-9.
  33. Yoon BS, Park H, Seong SJ, Park CT, Jun HS, Kim IH: Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic salpingectomy in tubal pregnancy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 159(1):190-3.
  34. Shrestha J, Saha R: Comparison of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2012; 22(12):760-4.
  35. Marcelli M, Lamourdedieu C, Lazard A, Cravello L, Gamerre M, Agostini A: Salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy by transumbilical single-site laparoscopy with the SILS system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 162(1):67-70.

Similar Articles

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.